this is not a classic case of passive holding as first referred to in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Respondent is not only holding the disputed domain name without using it but intends to use it in

passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张，� � 立即将被投诉人注册并正在使� �的争议域名转移给投诉人� �理� �如下： A.1 争议域名与 MARLBORO 商标混淆�

domain name and submits that passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith taking into account the overall context of the Respondent s behaviour f The circumstances surrounding registration which indicate bad faith

de domínio em disputa ou passive holding O Reclamante argumenta que a marca BRADESCO é largamente utilizada e conhecida pelo público e por isso seria quase impossível que alguém argumente que registrou tal marca como nome domínio sem ser

to avoid a finding of passive holding Such passive holding when viewed in the context of the relative strength of the SEGWAY mark and the parties prior relationship including Respondent knowledge of Complainant contractual right to control

Dr Mehmet C Oz Oz Property Holdings LLC Hearst Communications Inc v Daphne MAND / Domains By Proxy LLC Case No D2014-0719 1 The Parties The Complainant is Dr Mehmet C Oz Oz Property Holdings LLC Hearst Communications Inc of New York New York

disputed domain names However passive holding does not as such prevent finding of bad faith All circumstances of the case must be examined to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith The Panel hereby takes into consideration that The

of Complainant However such passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel further notes that Respondent undeveloped use of the website at the disputed domain name which

well established that the passive holding of a domain name which has been registered because of its association with another s trademark can be use of the domain name in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in Policy paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith In the opinion of the Panel the particular circumstances which lead to this

show that the Respondent passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this case the circumstances of Respondent behavior convince the Panel that Respondent passive

of the principle of so-called passive holding Complainant has failed to show registration or use in bad faith DECISION Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED

in bad faith The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith The international fame of a complainant s mark also supports a finding that passive holding constitutes use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主要从事设计� �� �产�'�� � �Galvin Green� �牌的� � 夫球服装�'�相关产� �� �投诉人早在1990年就� 始� �产�'�� � �Galvin Green�

The Complainant asserts that holding the disputed domain names in a directory for the purposes of the intended services is in itself a form of passive holding and that passive holding of domain names has been held to demonstrate bad faith all by

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name nationwideautoapproval.com in the context of this case would support a finding of bad faith registration and use under the distinguished panel s analysis in Telstra

is used in good faith Indeed passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Reproducing famous trademarks in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot be regarded as fair use or use in good faith

argue that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this case The Complainants maintain that all of the elements supporting a finding of bad faith in Telstra

type of use would amount to passive holding It is well established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also of bad faith use See Telstra Corporation

it resolves to an error page Passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances see e.g Airbus SAS Airbus Operations GmbH v Alesini Pablo Hernan / PrivacyProtect.org WIPO Case No D2013-2059 The question is whether